14 replies to this topic

[Nicola Prandoni]

As a first step in making ready my Norway '40 campaign, I decided to prepare ship's logs for all U-boot types (also exceeding my immediate needs, so they'll be ready for the future).After a basic search on the net, on a nice site (in german, but very easily readable): http://www.u-boot-ar...pen/typen.htmlI found all the data I needed and could start my job.I'll post my spreadsheet on odgw site as soon as they're finished.By comparing my data with the rules, I found a huge difference in batteries discharge rates.starting at full charge and running at 4 kn, every sub in the game will have batteries flat after 45 game turns (x 6 min. ea = 270 min. = 4.5 hours).My data say that, at 4 kn, they will run for a variable number of miles, from 35 (Type IIA) to 94 (Type VIIA), for a runnig time of little less that 9 hours (Type IIA) to 23.5 hours (Type VIIA).I know game should differ fron reality for playability's sake, but this seems a too great distortion.Am I missing something?I decided to shift discharge rate 1 line down, giving a free run at 1-2 kn, 1 cell per hour at3- 4 kn, and so on.I also think that different u-boot types should have a different number of battery cells.I also noticed that type II was very little (around 300 tons), so I felt it deserves only 3 hull boxes, even though this never happens in the rules.btw, in hull boxes number determination, should I compare it to submerged or surfaced displacement?any comment?Nicola

[Lonnie Gill]

Nicola,Glad to hear that you're preparing ship logs for all the U-boat types. We'll look forward to posting your spreadsheet. It should be of interest to a number of gamers. Also, let us know how your Norway 1940 campaign goes. That's a very interesting period. We also have a campaign section in the Bonus files if you'd be willing to share your campaign set-up with others who might want to run their own, local Norway campaign.Because submarines are not a primary focus for most naval gamers, the submarine data was necessarily generalized to stay within space and cost limits. I'm glad that you're taking the initiative to extend the data to the next level of detail. There are others in our gaming community who will be grateful to be the receipent of your additional distinctions. Here are some comments which, hopefully, will help in your endeavour.The Hull Box table is based on surface, not submerged displacement. I had limited the minimum listing on the table to 500 tons, which is enough to deal with the early Type VIIs, etc. But, as you correctly point out, some of the smaller Type IIs were also used operationally early in the war. I agree, these smaller subs in the 300 ton range should get three Hull Boxes.Battery capacity and discharge rates are a bit thornier. I had standarized the number of battery cells on the Ship Logs to avoid further complexity for the majority of players. Battery capacity, in fact, did vary between different submarine classes. This additional distinction would be a useful addition to your Ship Log updates. I averaged the battery discharge rate across a number of navies to get a generalized rate. This was then coordinated with the number of battery cells to ratio the discharge rate with the number of battery cells for use in a tactical simulation. The typical tactical simulation generally runs 10 to 20 or 25 Game Turns. While a real submarine commander is worried about battery capacity for far more than an hour or two, a wargame player is only concerned with the time period of the scenario. Battery capacity would not impact a wargame player's tactics if he had 30 to 45 Game Turns of high speed submerged movement. The current ratio, or tactical subset, used in conjunction with a less than full starting battery capacity (listed in the scenario set-up or determined by die roll in accordance with rule Section 3.3.3 on page 3 - 3) simulates the real life constraints a submarine skipper had to deal with within the duration of a scenario.Movement beyond the timeframe of a tactical scenario is intended to be made in accordance with the campaign movement rules. Movement across hours or days was done at low speed to ensure a sub retained some battery capacity and could stay submerged until nightfall for her next recharge. This has been abstracted into the campaign movement. High speed sprints were generally limited to short duration tactical events - which are simulated in a scenario. Extending the tactically focused battery capacity listed on the Ship Logs, which might be termed a scenario subset, to a submarine's full potential submerged movement capacity [i.e., map movement] would not provide a valid answer. I understand your confusion, as I had not explained this scenario vs. campaign or map movement sleight of hand employed to avoid players having to deal with another layer of complexity.If you wish to tie them together using the Ship Log battery capacity for both scenario and map movement, you'll have to either redefine discharge rates for tactical purposes - so players will be constrained - or set up another discharge table for the extended map or campaign movement.

[Nicola Prandoni]

U-boot logs will be ready shortly (later today or tomorrow) amd immediately posted to the group.As agreed with you, Type II, will have 3 hull boxes.About them I suggest that, in order to reflect their coastal role, low turret, and limited tonnage's advantages, they will be treated as SC for spotting (surfaced) and grounding.About the battery issue, I'm giving a battery cell for every hour @ 4 kn, so that will give a right feel compared to other logs.Than players will be free to use them up at rule's rate or at one shift down's rate (O cells @ 1-2 kn, 1 cell per hour @ 3-4 kn, 1 cell ea. 3 turns @ 5-6 kn, 1 cell ea. 2 turns @ 7+ kn), as I suggest.My suggestion is to change pace in pure submarine scenarios, making a turn representing 12 min. or more.In facts in those scenarios all ship's speed are likely to be reduced so this should work.As far my norwegian campaign's preparation, my reduced time makes it progress very slowly.The U-boot file is the first step.I'll keep you informed.Nicola

[Lonnie Gill]

Nicola,Your suggestion of changing the time intervals for submerged submarine scenarios makes sense as these tend to creep along. Sorry, bad pun.Your battery discharge rates will probably work well for equating to campaign type movement, but I would caution that using them in a tactical scenario will be unlikely to provide any constraints to a wargamer. They're always ready to push the limit, without worrying about events beyond the scenario. Consider using the published discharge rates for tactical scenarios, and then, converting the remaining battery cell capacity, using your rates, to determine map or campaign movement.I can certainly relate to your comment about limited time to pursue the more important things in life. Looking forward to your file when it's ready.LONNIE

[Nicola Prandoni]

I don't know if battery status was such a major issue in sub captain's mind during an attack.If it wasn't, I think that giving it such a huge importance (just for the sake of it) isn't helping to move the simulation toward historicity.I don't know if submerged higher speeds did make the sub more noisy; if this was the case, then that could be the way to go in order to limit the sub commander's speed options.Another way may be to drastically randomize initial charge level, simulating the variables involved in getting in a proper attack position or simply in closing the range.Remaining battery cells could also be used as a morale check trigger to see if the sub captain may prefer to let the targer go rather than losing his main survaivalability asset.All this could (and should) provide the needed constraints without departing from reality.I did send you my u-boote log long ago, but never heard of it anymore.did you get it?Did I submitted it in a wrong way?here attached I send it to you again (slightly modified)Nicola

[Nicola Prandoni]

here's the file [file name=UBoote.xls size=289792]https://www.odgw.com/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/files/UBoote.xls[/file]

[gregoryk]

nprand wrote:

I don't know if battery status was such a major issue in sub captain's mind during an attack.If it wasn't, I think that giving it such a huge importance (just for the sake of it) isn't helping to move the simulation toward historicity.

The decision to attack and when to break off had a great deal to do with battery power. If it was low the sub could not maneuver, and would be in poor condition to withstand a prolonged attack. ASW is usually measured in hours and even days, so the amount of battery life left to the sub was an important consideration for its captain.

I don't know if submerged higher speeds did make the sub more noisy; if this was the case, then that could be the way to go in order to limit the sub commander's speed options.Another way may be to drastically randomize initial charge level, simulating the variables involved in getting in a proper attack position or simply in closing the range.

Both the noise of a sub moving through the water and the noise from the sub's internal machinery and need for crew handling both increase at higher speeds.

Remaining battery cells could also be used as a morale check trigger to see if the sub captain may prefer to let the targer go rather than losing his main survaivalability asset.All this could (and should) provide the needed constraints without departing from reality.I did send you my u-boote log long ago, but never heard of it anymore.did you get it?Did I submitted it in a wrong way?here attached I send it to you again (slightly modified)

ASW is and has been a particular interest of mine for a long time. Several years ago I ran a March 1943 convoy PBeM campaign using another set of rules. It was difficult to coordinate all the info for the players, and keep the game moving. Mal Wright devised an interesting set of ftf rules for ASW, that do work. But gaming ASW still proves difficult due to several things:[ul]the need for double-blind information places enormous responsibility on the refereethe large amount of time that subs take to set-up attacks and for escorts to prosecute contactsthe relative low piece density for one side and the high piece density for the other[/ul]Lonnie is the best one to comment on the Ship Logs' accuracy.Good luck!Gregory

[Nicola Prandoni]

ASW is usually measured in hours and even days, so the amount of battery life left to the sub was an important consideration for its captain.

That definitely calls for an important change in turn representation.I'm not that much into ASW combat, but according to what you say 18 to 30 minutes turns (or even more) seem more appropriate.

Both the noise of a sub moving through the water and the noise from the sub's internal machinery and need for crew handling both increase at higher speeds.

IIRC, unless silent running, sub's detection isn't modified by its speed.Adding a couple of modifiers if running at high speed should 'suggest' a more proper slow running in order to remain at a lower level of detection.This should work better than a artificially higher cell consumption.

[gregoryk]

nprand wrote:

ASW is usually measured in hours and even days, so the amount of battery life left to the sub was an important consideration for its captain.

That definitely calls for an important change in turn representation.I'm not that much into ASW combat, but according to what you say 18 to 30 minutes turns (or even more) seem more appropriate.

The rules we used for the PBeM game had three-minute tactical turns. To mitigate the slowness of the combat, I required at minimum two turns of plotting. Sometimes I had one side or the other establish up to five turns worth of advance plotting, especially for the sub approach prior to its detection and the sub following its attack. The convoy and its escorts had established, unchanging plots prior to a successful attack or sub contact. In any case, one can always break in to pre-plotted moves and foreshorten the turn.

Both the noise of a sub moving through the water and the noise from the sub's internal machinery and need for crew handling both increase at higher speeds.

IIRC, unless silent running, sub's detection isn't modified by its speed.Adding a couple of modifiers if running at high speed should 'suggest' a more proper slow running in order to remain at a lower level of detection.

You are correct for GQIII, and this is due both to a desire for simplicity, and that subs were not yet capable of enough speed to cause noise meriting another modifier. It would become an issue as sub speeds increased with the advent of the true submersible.

This should work better than a artificially higher cell consumption.

I am not sure that replacing the rules method will produce a better result. Try it out and let us know.Gregory

[Dave Franklin]

I think one of the things GQ3 has done well is to try to please what I would characterize as the two sets of people when it comes to Air and to Submarine operations. The first set of people have little or no interest putting aircraft and/or submarines on the tactical game table (possibly excepting spotter aircraft for gunfire). The second set of people are interested in putting aircraft and/or submarines on the tactical game table. Thus, GQ3 has two sets of rules for aircraft and submarines – tactical and campaign.I will admit to being in the first set, so I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about issues with the tactical rules, except where they are referenced by the campaign rules.I have made some observations about aircraft ratings before, so for now, I’ll address subs and ASW.The campaign rules are pretty quick. I am currently using them in a June ’40 Med campaign. There are a couple of areas where more detail could be added, but at the expense of taking more time, and probably at the expense of introducing subjective ratings like the ACE rating for aircraft.What could be added? Taking the US as an example, currently there are no differences between an old ‘P’ class sub and a new ‘T’ or Gato (pre-radar). In fact, the only difference between an old ‘S’ class boat and new Gato (pre-radar) would be I would probably shift left one column on the Torpedo Damage table for hits by the old Mk 10 fish. Differences in speed and battery capacity are not accounted for in the probability of getting into attack position. 6 bow/4 stern vs. 4 bow(/2 stern) torpedo tubes and fire control sophistication (the old ‘S’ boats didn’t have TDCs) are not accounted for on the Submarine Attack table – not for the number of hits per target, or allowing attacks on multiple targets. Differences in speed, battery capacity and diving depth are not accounted for on the Campaign ASW table. All could be added, but complexity and time would also increase.One assumes some detail is factored into the campaign submarine tables. For example, I would suspect the main reasons for the date columns on the Submarine Attack table are 1) US torpedo fixes in ’43 and 2) the increase in Allied ASW effectiveness ’43-44 (i.e. why the German and Japanese “Detected before attack” results are more probable). One potential problem with the design of the tables is it assumes historical opponents, so hypothetical “what if” campaigns are impacted.Actually, looking at the Submarine Attack table while writing this up has led me to a discovery. From 4.6.3 Submarine Attacks, it is pretty clear you roll 1D6 on the Submarine Attack table. What happens, for example, during the day in ’43-45 with a German U-boat attacking an AK, AP or CVE, and he rolls a 3? Does he get 3 hits, or is he detected before the attack?

[Lonnie Gill]

Nicola,Work has been frantic since I returned, but I'm getting caught up with the Forum. I finally got a chance to read your comment and download your file. Very impressive; you've provided some great data to digest. I'm looking forward to a detailed study once we get some time critical proposals done at work. Truly regrettable when that begins to interfere with the important things in life! I would note in passing that you can copy the torpedo tube number-inside-a-circle "wingding" characters from the blank Ship Log in the Bonus files on this website which will save you the trouble of having to over lay the number with separate circle drawings. In a tactical sense, battery capacity wasn't typically a big worry for a sub captain unless the capacity was very low. However, high underwater speed was also only used briefly as the captain didn't know how long before he could count on being able to surface and recharge. Now, contrast that with the wargamer in a typical scenario. He can see the location of the escorts and targets in the tactical area in relation to his sub's hidden, submerged location, giving him a situational awareness (to use the modern term) that a real sub skipper could only dream of. Hence, he can make decisions of when it's worth it to "sprint" for a number of Game Turns to reach a position for an opportunity a real skipper would not have had enough visibility through a periscope to recognize. Further, the gamer is only worried about having enough battery capacity to make it through the scenario, knowing its actual or approximate length in Game Turns. In playtesting during development, players consistently used this beneficial combination to operate at unrealistically high underwater speeds most of the time.Thus, I used the tactical battery discharge rate as a means to cause the gamer to act in a more realistic manner. This tactical discharge rate, in a sense, simulates a skipper's real world desire to conserve battery capacity for the uncertain future, past the immediate events simulated in a scenario. In playtesting, it caused players to move most of the time at a more historic 3 - 4 Kts or 5 - 6 Kts. Speeds of 7 Kts + were used sparingly. Without constraint, your scenarios may run into the same issues. As mentioned in a previous response, your discharge rates can then be used to convert the sub's remaining capacity into equivalent map or campaign movement.I do like your idea of having to make a morale check to pursue an attack if a sub's battery capacity is low. Combined with the random determination of battery capacity at the start of a scenario, described in Section 3.3.3 on page 3-3, this provides a sensible constraint.Finally, submerged sub scenarios do tend to play out slowly. As Gregoryk and others have suggested, you might want to allow players to plot multiple Game Turns at a time until they get within a critical distance. This is a well known referee technique to conserve actual playing time for the combat aspects. This varies with the situation, so I don't think standardizing a longer length Game Turn for submerged submarine scenarios would be effective. In addition, that would provide time problems in the opposite way when a sub surfaced or was forced to surface and resolve combat on the surface. Giving the referee the flexibility to plot one or more Game Turns at a time allows him to vary the pace more effectively.

[Nicola Prandoni]

Thanks for the appreciation, I hope my work will benefit other players too.About batteries capacity I did notice a wide variety of entries in different sites.In the end I did choose the german one mentioned in this thread first post, as I trusted it more for its deep and complete data and approach.In the file (I sent two, slightly different, the first one apparently being lost; I'm referring to the last one) I gave some characteristics to coastal subs.As I'm not sure I treated them rightly, I'd like to know what other people think about it.As far as windings characters are concerned, I must admit I had some troubles in using the ones available in the blank sheet, as I'm working on a macintosh, and, apparently the same typing gets different characters.In this way my work can be useful to all players.Sub's batteries capacity.I can see your point.In this case I still think different boat characteristics should be translated in different number of boxes even with rules' discharge rates.In fact the final way to play ASW scenarios should be in a full double blind way, but then we could hardly call it a miniatures simulation.

[gregoryk]

nprand wrote:

As far as windings characters are concerned, I must admit I had some troubles in using the ones available in the blank sheet, as I'm working on a macintosh, and, apparently the same typing gets different characters.

Ah, a brother Mac user! Wingdings are not always loaded into the various versions of MS Word, but are readily available. I found three separate wingdings files, that overlapped somewhat with the "webdings" font already on the Mac. For the sake of those enlightened few who use the best computer, I am attaching a conversion for "wingdings 2" font, so that the proper numbers can be used.[file name=Wingding2_GQIII_format.pdf size=23203]https://www.odgw.com/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/files/Wingding2_GQIII_format.pdf[/file] Cheers,Gregory

[Lonnie Gill]

Nicola,Your suggestion to vary the number of battery cells certainly has merit. Reliable data on the subject of battery capacity and comparative battery charge and durability across the various navies, however, is difficult to find. Your file on the U boats is a great first step and takes the simulation to another level. Hopefully, others will study your file and take up the gauntlet. Like you, I look forward to seeing their views.Sorry that you had trouble with the wingding characters, but fortunately, Gregory has provided the needed conversion. PCs and Macs; ne'er the twain shall meet! On the other hand, you're a lot less likely to have to deal with the virus problem my PC has been going through. Again, thanks for a really worthwhile submarine extension. It should prove useful in your Norway campaign.

[Lonnie Gill]

Co_diver,Interesting ideas for the campaign SUBMARINE ATTACK table. As you surmised, this campaign level table was modeled on the main submarine for each navy in the time periods shown and major changes in torpedo and ASW capability. The Gato "fleet" submarine was used for the US. Your suggested changes would make sense if you want to simulate the earlier US S-boats, for example. The answer to your question on using the table for a German 1943-45 attack is both. The U boot would score three torpedo hits as the D6 result is within the "1 - 4" listed and she is detected by escorts, subject to ASW attack. This overlap in the D6 results occurs several places in the table.The text in Section 4.6.3 on page 4-8 should have the word "instead" deleted from step 5 to avoid the implication that it has to be an either/or result. Note that Section 4.6.4 provides that "a sub detected during a torpedo attack is counterattacked once her torpedoes have been launched."Good catch. Looks like a bit of rewording is in order.